vivarium, vol. 14, nos. 1-2, 1976
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
1/164
Vivarium
Volume 14
1976
Reprinted ith hepermission fthe
original ublisher
by
Periodicals
Service
Company
Germantown,
NY
2013
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
2/164
Printedn cid-free
aper.
This
eprint
as
reproduced
rom
he
best
riginal
dition
opy
vailable.
NOTE OTHEREPRINTDITION:
In
ome ases
full
age
dvertisements
hicho not dd
o
the
cholarly
alue
f his
olumeave
een mitted.
As
result,
ome
eprinted
olumes
ay
ave
rregularagination.
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
3/164
VIVARIUM
AN
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR
THE
PHILOSOPHY
AND
INTELLECTUAL
LIFE
OF THE
MIDDLE
AGES
AND
RENAISSANCE
VOLUME
XIV
1976
E.
J.
BRILL
-
LEIDEN
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
4/164
VIVARIUM
AN
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR THE PHILOS-
OPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE
OF
THE
MIDDLE
AGES
AND
RENAISSANCE
vivarium
s devoted
n
particular
o the
profane
side
of
mediaeval
hilosophy
nd the
ntellectualife
f
the
Middle
Ages
and
Renaissance.
editors
C.
J.
de
Vogel,
Utrecht)
L.
M. de
Rijk, Leyden)
H.
A.
G.
Braakhuis,
Nijmegen)
F. F.
Blok,
Amsterdam)
J.
IJsewijn,
Louvain).
SecretaryftheEditorial oard:Prof. . M.deRijk.
All
communications,
xcept
hose
f business
ature,
hould
be addressed
o C.
H.
Kneepkens,
atholieke
Universiteit,
Erasmuslaan
0,
8.26,
Nijmegen,
he
Netherlands.
advisory
Marie-Therse
'Alvemy,
Paris-Poitiers)
Tullio
Gregory,
committee
(Rome)
Paul Oskar
Kristeller,
New
York)
-
JanPinborg,
(Copenhagen)
Albert
immermann,
Cologne).
publishers
E.
J.
Brill,
Leiden,
The
Netherlands.
published
Twice
yearly,
ay
nd
November;
a 160
pages
yearly.
Contributions
ubmitted
o
vivarium should
preferably
be writtenn English, rench rGerman. he manuscripts
should
be
typewritten
nd
double
paced,
xcept
for
ong
quotations
nd footnotes.
dequate
marginsijinch)
should
be
left
at each
edge
of
the
sheet. Footnotes
hould be
numbered
ontinuously
hroughout
ach article.
heymay
be
placed
either
t thefoot f
the
page
or at theend
ofthe
text.
Contributors
eceive
5 off-prints
ree f
charge.
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
5/164
CONTENTS
OF
VOLUME XIV
(1976)
. . KNEEPKENS "Mulier Quae Damnavit Salvavit" A
Utrecht Note
on the
Early
Developmentof
the
Relatio
simplex
i
L. M.
de
RIJK
Some
Thirteenth
entury
Tracts
on
The
Leiden
Game
of
Obligation
II
26
rpd
p. orb an
Anonymi
Teutonici
commentum n
Utrecht
Theo oli
eclogam
e
codice
Utrecht,
U.B.
22
editum
4)
50
e.
j.
ash
worth
"/
Promise
You a
Horse': A
Second
Waterloo
Ontario
Problem
of
Meaning
and
Reference
n
Late
Fifteenth
and
Early
Sixteenth
Century
ogic
(j)
.
.
.
62
G.
R. Evans
St. Anselm'
Analogies
81
Reading
Berks.
Jerome
v.
brown
fohn
Duns
Scotus
on
Henry
of
Ghent's
Windsor Ontario Argumentsfor Divine Illumination
The
Statement
f
the
Case
94
paul
v.
spade
William
Heytesbury's
osition
on
"
In
-
loomington,
ndiana
solubles"
One
Possible
Source
114
L.
M.
de
RIJK
Richard
Billingham's
Works
on
Logic
121
Leiden
E.
j.
ASHWORTH
"/
Promise
You a
Horse - A
Second
Waterloo,
ntario
Problem
of Meaning
and
Reference
n
Late
Fifteenth
and
Early
Sixteenth
Century
ogic
(2)
139
.
H.
KNEEPKENS
Another
Manuscript of
the
REGULAE
Nijmegen
DE
MEDI I
S
SY
LLABI
S
maistri
W l-
leimt:
Cambridge
Corpus
Christi
Col-
lege
460
156
BOOKS
RECEIVED
59
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
6/164
Vivarium
IV,
i
(1976)
i(
Mulier
Quae
Damnavit
,
Salvavit"
A
Note on the
Early
Development
f
theRelatio
simplex
C.
H.
KNEEPKENS
I.
Introduction
In
of
the
his
paragraph
Notices et
on
extraits
the
rapports
} Charles
of the
Thurot
relatives
observed
to
their
for
antecedents,
the period
f
his
Notices et
extraits
CharlesThurot observed forthe period
from the
late
Antiquity
until
the
middle of
the
twelfth
century
servile
following
f
the medieval
grammarians
of
Priscian's
doctrine
on the
relatives.
Only
in
Peter
Helias' Summa
he
noticed
a first
tep
on the
path
of
independence:
the
division,
not found
in
Priscian,
of
the
relatio
nto
the
relatio
directa
nd
the
relatio
ndirecta
2
A
further
tage
of
development
Thurot
found n
the
tracts
dating
from
the
middle of
the thirteenth
entury:
a
systematical
treatment f the
relatio
and the relatives in
one
section.
In
his Notices
he
printed
an
extensivefragment aken fromthe Summa de constructionefmaster
Poncius the
Provencal,3
ater,
in
1886,
completely
edited
by
Fierville.4
Poncius'
section on
the
relatives
[De
relativis)
5
can
be
divided into
two
main
parts:
on the relatio and
on
the
relatives.
The
paragraph
on
the relatio
tartswith a
definition
f the
relatio
ascribed
to Priscian
'
Relatio est
ut ait
Priscianus,
antelate rei
repetitio
vel
representatio'
Next
a
division
of the
relatio
into eleven
kinds
is
given,
among
which
there
are five
couples
*
This paper, n a first raft,was read at the Internationalymposionor
Medieval
ogic
and
Semantics
Leyden/Nijmegen,
974.
wish o
express
my
cordial
hanks
o
Prof.L. M.
de
Rijk
and
Drs
H. A.
G.
Braakhuis or
heir
many
nd useful
ommentsnd
criticisms. am
indebted lso to
Mrs
Deborah
Gil
who
was
so
kind o readthis
paper
nd to
correct
o
many
lumsy
ffences
I
made
against
he
English rammar.
1
Ch.
Thurot,
Notices
t
extraits
e divers
manuscrits
atins
our
ervir
l'histoire
des
doctrines
rammaticales
u
moyen-ge,
otices
t
Extraits .
.,
t.
XXXII, 2,
Paris
1869
anast. repr.
Frankfurtm Main
1964),pp. 355-72.
2
Thurot
869
p.
356.
3
Thurot
86,
pp.
356-7.
4
Ch.
Fierville,
ne
grammaire
atine
ndite u
XIIIe
sicle,
aris
1886.
The
Summade constructionef master Poncius is edited n theAppendixI,
pp.
177-92.
5
Fierville
886
pp.
186-90.
I
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
7/164
1.
a.
ecleptica:
'qui
legitdisputai*
b.
non-ecleptica:
homo
qui legitdisputt';
2. a. directa:
'
hic legit ui disputt
b. indirecta:
'ille
legitquem
video'
3.
a. intrinseca:
idem
egit
t
disputt
b. extrnseca:
T.
legit
qui
disputt
;
4.
a.
intrasumpta:
Sortes
diligit
e'
b.
extrasumpta:
'homo
egit
qui
disputt']
5.
a.
mutua:
'Ule
qui
legit
disputt
6. a.
personalis:
'Prus
legit
qui disputt
b. simplex: 'mulierdampnavit ue salvavi.
The
relatio
simplex
on
its
turn,
s subdivided
into
seven
subkinds
1.
when the antecedent
supposits
for
an
appellat[iv]um( )t
and
the
relative for another
appellat[iv]um
'mulier
dampnavit
que
salvavi
2.
when
the antecedent
supposits
for the sort
(maneries),
and
the
relative for
the same:
'homo est
dignssima
creaturarum
cui
competit
uti r
lione'
3.
when the
antecedent
supposits
for
the
sort,
and the
relative for
an
appellat[iv]um serpens st aUidissimumnimal qui venit dmulierm'
4.
when
the
antecedent
supposits
for
an
appellat[iv]um,
and the
relative for
the sort:
'homo
currit,
qui
est
dignssima
creaturarum']
5.
when the antecedent
supposits
for
the noun
itself
(materialiter),
and
the
relative
for
the
res
(= appellatum)
'
homo
est
appellativum
nomen
quod
( )
currit'
6.
when the
antecedent
supposits
for
the res
and the
relative
for the
noun
itself
(materialiter)
'homo
currit
quod
est
appellativum
nomen'
7.
when
the
antecedent
and
the relative
supposit
for
the
sort
in
equivocation:
'canis est latrabile animal
quod
est celeste sidus or
'
manus
mee
que
vos
feceruntt
lavis
confixe
unt'.
The
paragraph
on
the
relatives
starts
with the
division of
the
relatives
into
the relativa
substantiae
and
the
relativa
proprietatum
and is
further
devoted
to
the rules
for
the
use
of
the
relatives
in the
proposition,
and
to some
exceptional
cases.
The
following
definitions
f
the
relatio
personalis
and
of
the
relatio
simplex
attracted
Thuros
special
attention
The
relatio
xtrnseca
as
lacking
n
Fierville's
manuscript.
supplied
t
from hurot
869 p.
357.
2
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
8/164
'Personalis
elatio
st,
quando
ntecedens
upponit
ro
uno
appellativo )
et relativum
ro
eodem,
t
P.
legit, ui disputt.
Simplex
st,
quando
antecedens
upponit ro
uno
appellativo )
et rela-
tivum
pro alio,
ut in
theologia
mulier
ampnavit,ue
salvavit.'
He
supposed
their
origin
n the
logical
theories
of the
early
thirteenth
century,8
nd
brought
them
in relation
with
the
suppostilo
simplex
and
personalis,key-notions
n the medieval
Terminist
ogic.9
The
oldest mention of
the
relatio
implex
known
to
Thurot occurred
in
a
line of Alexander
de
Villadei's
Doctrinale
dated
by
Thurot
in
the
first
art
of
the
thirteenth
entury.10
ere
only
one kind of the
relatio
simplex
as such
was
given:
'Occurretque
ibi
quandoque
elatio
implex
Femina, uaeclausit itae ortamreseravi.11
Thurot
printed
immediately
after
these lines
the
comment from
the
o-called Glose
Admirantes'
dating
from he
middle of
the
thirteenth
century.
This
commentary
pointed
at the
parallel
between
the relatio
simplex/personalis
nd
the
suppositio
implexpersonalis,
2
The
glossator
first
gives
three
ways
of the
use of the notion
of
suppositio
simplex
[i.
'
homo
est
species'
2.
'
homo est
animal
3.
'
piper
venditurhic et
Rome'.].
Next
he states
that
the
relatio
simplex
has been
called so
a
privatione ersone and discusses the meaningofpersona here. In this
context
persona
cannot
signify
ither
the
accident
of the
verb nor
of
the
pronoun,
nor the
individua essentia
rationalis
nature
(i.e.
the
Boethian
definition),
but
persona
has to be
accepted
here
as the
7
Thurot
869,
pp.
357-9.
8
Thurot
869,
pp.
357-8:
'Les
dnominationst
les
dfinitions
es
relatio
simplex
t
personalis
nt
t
empruntes
la
logique
du
temps
and
he
adds
in
a
note
'La
terminologie
t la
thorie
ogique
e la
suppositio
'apparaissent
pas
avant e
XIIIe
sicle.
Le
plus
ancien
exte
u
je
aie
rencontre
st
dans
le
Doctrinal
'Alexandre
e
Villedieu).
uivant
es
logiciens
ne
terme
nral
dsigneubstantivement,u,comme n disaitdsle commencementu XIIIe
sicle,
uppose our
supponit
ro)
a
classe
ides
laquelle
sa
signification
est
rapporte,
omme
ans homo st
pecies,
nimal
st
genus,
u
pour
outce
qui
est
compris
ans
'tendue e
sa
signification,
omme
ans
omnis omo
st
animal.
La
premire
uppositio
tait
appelle implex
la
seconde
personalis.
On
disait
de
mme
e
la
relatio.
9
For
the
development
f
Terminist
ogic,
ee L. M. de
Rijk,
ogica
moderno-
rum.
A
Contributiono
the
History
f Early
Terminist
ogic, (Assen
1962),
II,
i,
2
(Assen 967).
10
Thurot
869,
p.
28:
'Alexandre
e
Villadieu donc
vcu et crit
dans
la
premire
oiti
u
XIIIe
sicle'.
11
Das
Doctrinale es
Alexander
e
Villa-Dei,
d. D.
Reichling,
erlin
1893,
w. 1449-50;Thurot 869,p. 360: 'Alexandrene connatqu'une espcede
relatio
implex'
12
Thurot
869,pp.
360-1.
3
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
9/164
res individua
accidentibus
circumscripta,
t
sunt
tempus,
ocus,
figura
-
for
they
make a
thing
an individual
thing,
and
show
that it
is
a
res
singularis ,
or
as the
individuumof a
species.
And so the
adjective
personalis
in relatio
personalis
must be taken. Therefore n the term
relatio
simplex
the
adjective
simplex
indicates the removal
of the
collection of accidents
needed for
an
individuano,
and so the
word
used in the relatio
implex
does
not
stand for n
individuum,
ut for a
genus
or a
species.
However,
in the
proposition
mulier
que dampnavit,
salvavi,
the
question
rises
whether the relative
que
refers to idem
numero
Relatio
personalis)
or
to idem
specie Relatio simplex).
If
it
refers to
idem
numero,
the
proposition
is
false,
for then
the
real
identity f Eve and Maryhas to be accepted. If it refers o idemspecie,
the
proposition
is false
too,
since
a
species
cannot damn nor
save.
But
if
we
want
to maintain the
dicta
antiquorum,
he
glossator says,
we have to
mix
up
in
such
locutions
the intentio
peciei
and
the
intentio
ndividui,
and understand
them as follows:
mulier,
.e. a
thing
of this
species, dampnavit,
and
a
thing
of the same
species
salvavit.
Any
further ubdivision
of the
relatio
simplex,
as
given by
Poncius,
does not occur
in the Glose.
Whereas the textsprintedby Thurot on thissubject, can all be dated
in the thirteenth
century,
the notions
of the relatio
simplex
and
personalis
do
already
occur
in some
writingsdating
from he
twelfth
century.
In
this
paper
I will trace the
development
of the
relatio
simplex
ccording
to
some
of these
texts
dating
from
he
early
twelfth
century.
n a
followingpaper
I will sketch a second
stage
of
develop-
ment: the
incorporation
of the
relatio
simplex
into
the theories on
syntax by
the
grammarians
of the
late twelfth nd
early
thirteenth
century.
And in a further
tudy
I
intend
to examine the use
made
ofthe relatio implex n the tracts that belong to the traditionof the
early
Terminist
ogic
from the
later
quarter
of the
twelfth
until
the
middle of the
thirteenth
entury.
In the above
mentionedtracts
on the
relatio
he
example
mulier
que
damnavit,
alvavi
or
slight
variations
of
t,
have been
frequently
sed
for
llustrating
he
relatio
implex.
Since it
is
a common
procedure
for
medieval
grammarians
and
logicians
to take the
same
example
for
illustrating
a
certain
question,
even if
terminology
and doctrinal
point
of view
differ, propose
to
use,
in
a first
nstance,
his
example
typical
of the
relatio
implex,
as a
guide
forthe
investigations
on the
development
of the relatio
implex.
4
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
10/164
II. The Early Twelfth
Century Texts
A.
Peter
Abailard
The example 'mulierque damnavit salvavi or a slightvariant of it
occurs
three
times
n
the Abailardian
writings
I.
The
Logica
'Ingredientibus (the
gloss
on
the
Perihermeneias).lz
In
the
discussion
on the
true affirmative
ategorical
propositions
(de
veris
affirmationibus)
bailard
claims
that
the formal
structure
of all
the
dicta
of
propositions
of
this kind
is
aliquid
esse
aliquid
quod
ipsum
est
The
propositions
homoest
animal
9
and
'
Socrates st animal9
Abailard
continues,
both
say
hominem
esse animal
but
the former
does so simpliciter nd the latter determinateAbailard now makes
two
remarks on
the
proposition
Socrates
est animal
*
with
regard
to
the
above
given
formal
structure.
We
must note that
since
'
Socrates
est
animal
9
says
Socratem sse
illud
quod
ipse
est
the
nominal
predicate
phrase
illud
quod
ipse
est
is
used here in the
proposition
neutr
liter,
just
as
if t
was said that
quae
res
ipse
est
refers o animal
simpliciter
so
that it
does not
obtain from
Socrates
the
subject,
any
determinate
meaning.
The
same
question
is dealt
with in
the Sententie
secundum M.
Petrm,XXVI ,14where is argued that the proposition Socrates est
homo
says
Socratem sse id
quod
ipse
est
Here we
must not take
'id'
discrete
ecundum
personam
but
indifferenter
am
secundumnaturam
quam
secundum
personam
In
the
Logica
'
Ingredientibus
Abailard
illustrates this
process
of
referring
with
two
examples
'
per
mulierem
intravit
mors
per
eandemvita
and
'
mulier
uae
damnavit,
psa
salvavi
According
to
Abailard
the
pronouns
eandem
and
quae/ipsa
are used
here
indifferenter
nd
not
personaliter
since the
meaning
of
e.g.
the
latter
example
is: mulier
a
thing
of
this
sex,
damnavit et
eadem
a
thing
of the same
sex,
salvavit so that eadem s used for: the same
secundum
indifferentiam
exus
and
not
for: the
same secundum
identitatem
ersonae.
This
kind
of
relatio
Abailard
calls the relatio
indi
er
ns,
and it
can
occur when
the
appellative
noun
to which
the
relative
refers,
s
a noun habens
nominationem
onfus
m.
13
Logica
'
Ingredientibus
in:
Peter
Abaelards
Philosophische
chriften
ed.
.
Geyer,
eitrge
.
., XXI,
1-3,
Mnster.
W.
1919-1927,
sp.
Vol.
3:
Die
Glossen u
Epjxeveta,
p.
307"53
(esp-
pp.
396-7).
For the
text,
see
Appendix
.
14L. Minio-Paluello,welfthenturyogic Texts ndStudiesI, Abaelardiana
indita
j.
Super
periermeneias
II-XIV,
2.
Sententie
ecundum .
Petrm,
Roma
1958,
.
118.For
the
ext,
ee
Appendix
.
5
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
11/164
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
12/164
idem
similitudine
and
idem
pro
incommutato
Dealing
with idem
definitione
e
adds
a
remark on
idem
as
a
relative
pronoun
in
subject
position
in
a
proposition.
And
according
to
Abailard the relative
pronoun
idem can
only
be used as
subject
term in
the
meaning
of
idem
numero
or of
idem
definitione
So
when
we
say
'
mulier damnavit
mundum t
eadem
salvavi the
proposition
has two
meanings:
a
true
one and
a
false one.
For
if the relatio
s
taken ad
identitatem umeri
i.e.
if
the
personaliter
numero
ame woman
is
understood
to have
damned
and to have
saved,
the
proposition
s false. But if idem
is
accepted
to be
ad
identitatem
efinitionis,
o
that
eadem
only
means
the same
quantum
nomen
mulieris
simpliciter
the
proposition
will be
true.
3.
The
Sententie ecundum
M
.
Petrm
II.
Sophisms
about
totum'.18
As
Minio-Paluello indicates
in
his
introduction to the
Sententie
the
same
discussion
as
in the
Ingredientibus
ccurs
in
this work.19
In
the
solution
of
the first
ophism
about
'totum'
the
author of
the
Sententie
points
at the twofold
use
of
the
relative
(dictio
relativa):
either
t
refers
ersonaliter
quasi
discrete
secundum cilicet
dentitatem
persone
or
indifferenter
simpliciter
ecundum
identitatem
ature
idest convenientie el similitudinis rerumiuxta causam inpositionis
premissi
nominis
This distinction
s
not
an
arbitrary
one,
for
since
the relatio
ccording
to
the
author
always
happens
to be in
accordance
with
the
things (res),
it
is
built
upon
the
identity
of the
things.
And
as the
distinction
n
the identitasrerum
an
be
made into an
identitas
secundum
personam (e.g.
'
idem
est
Marcus
quod
Tullius
)
and an
identitas
secundum naturam sive
speciem
(e.g.
'
idem est
Petrus
quod
Marcus'),
so
in the relatio the
distinction
an
be made
into a relatio
secundum
identitatem
ersone
and a
relatio
secundum
identitatem
nature Of both kinds an example taken fromSedulius is given: a)
secundum identitatem
ersone:
'
non
quia
qui
summus
pater
est
et
filius
hie
est'
(Carm.
Pasc .
I,
319),
explained
with the
words: non
est
eadem
utriusque
persona
and
b)
secundum
identitatem
nature:
'
sed
quia
quod
summus
pater
est
et
filius
hie
est'
(Carm.
Pasc
.
I,
320),
i.e.
eiusdem
nature
hec est
persona
In
the
same
way
the
relatio
n
the
proposition
homo
sculpit qui
pingi
or
'
homo
sculpit
et
idem
pingi
can
be
accepted
either
ad
personam
or ad
speciem
sive
naturam
18Minio-Paluello958,pp. 115-8. orthetext, eeAppendix .19
Cf.
Minio-Paluello
s
Introduction,
p.
XXXIX-
XLI,
and
M. T.
Beonio-
Brocchieri
umagalli,
The
Logic of
Abelard
Dordrecht
969,
esp.
pp.
92-3.
7
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
13/164
humanitatis
ndifferenter.
nd as
a
specimen
of
the
latter kind of
relatio,
the
author adduces
the
proposition
'mulier
que dampnavit,
salvavi and he explains: noncirca eandempersonam, ed circa
noturam
sexus muliebris. .Eva
quippe
dampnavit,
Maria
salvavit.
Next he adds
a remark
that another
example
of
this
kind of
relatio
appears
in
Priscian
'ubi videlicet
de "sui"
loquitur'.
This does
not,
however,
as
Minio-Paluello adds
in a
note,
refer to Priscian
XII,
1-3,
the
introductoryparagraphs
to
the
pronouns,
but to Priscian
XVII,
115:
'.
. . ut
'ille sui
miseretur,
lle sibi
donat,
Virgilius
e
celebra.
et
pro
composito
raeco
,
t
diximus,
ccipitur,
uod pud
Graecos
uidem
intribusnveniturersonis,t vel n sereflectitctum uumvel nposses-
sionem
uam
. 20
Here
the relative
quod
litteraliter
refers
to
composito
Graeco
but
in
fact
to
IfxauTou,
nd
.
Some lines
further n
in the Sententie
he
question
of
the
demonstratio
ad
naturam
s
discussed
too,
with the
example
taken
from he
Benedictio
fontis.
So we find
n
the
Abailardian
writings
he
distinction
n the
relatio
and the act ofreferringnto
A. the relatio
secundum
identitatem
er onae
/numeri,
nd
referri
personaliter
r
determinate
B. the
relatio ecundum
ndifferentiamjidentitatem
aturae or
defini-
tions
,
and
referri
impliciterjindif
er
ntergener
liter et
confuse
This
kind of
relatioAbailard
calls also
the
relatio
ndifferens.
From
the above
quoted
passages
it
appears
that Abailard was
fully cquainted
with the distinction
n
the relatio and
that he
applied
it in his logical discussions. But he does not supply us with the very
reason
for
this
distinction;
he
merely
makes use
of it:
a relative
that
refers
to an
antecedent
term
nominationis or
significationis
confusae,
causes
a
relatio
ndifferens
r
confusa
and it
is
on
its
turn
a
relative
confusae
significationis
too,
we
must
not
wonder
about
this
distinction,
or
t
has
its
analogy
in the
identitas erum
When
we,
however,
examine
the
frequently
sed
example
'
mulier
tc' it
appears
that the use of
the
relatives
in this
proposition
s
in
disconformity
20Prisciani Grammatici aesariensis nstitutionumrammaticarumibri
XVIII,
ex. rc.
M.
Hertz,
Vol.
I-II
(=
Grammatici
atini,
I-III),
Leipzig
1855-9
anast. repr.
Hildesheim
961),
Vol.
II,
p.
16810-3.
Italics
are
mine).
8
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
14/164
with the
requirements
made
by
Priscian
in
regard
with
the use of the
relative
(pro)
nouns
in a
proposition:
'Propriumstpronominisro aliquo nomineproprio oniet certas ig-nificare
ersonas'
21
'Hoc
idem,
dest
qui', quotiens ubiungitur
omini,
uomodo
apud
Graecos,
ecesse
st
non solum d nomen
raepositum,
ed
etiam
ad id
subiunctumlterum erbum
roferri,
t Virum
cano,
qui
veni. si no-
minativo
ominativus
diungitur,
d eandem
ersonam
erba eferuntur'.22
The
medieval
grammarian
now had to
choose
between
disavowing
Priscian or
the author
of
the
authorative
saying,
and
taking
his
refuge
to the
figura
i.e. to
solve
the
problem by
means
of a locutio non-
propia
or
figurativa,
.e. a relatio
non-propria
Apart
fromthe
grammarians,
the medieval
theologians,
who were
mostly grammarians
too,
must have
clearly
felt the need
for
this
distinction
n
the relatio
as
the
examples
used
for
illustrating
the
relatio
ndifferens
y
Abailard
show.
The
distinction etween
the both
kinds of relatio secundum dentita-
tem
ersonae
nd secundum
dentitatem aturae
is neither
grammatical
nor
a
theological
one.
It
was
derived from he
results
of the reflexions
made in
the
discussionson
the universalia
so
it
is a
philosophical
one
it
was constructedupon theAbailardian, i.e. anti-realistic, daptation
of
William of
Champeaux'
indifferemia-theovy
'In
nullis
rgo
oc
nuenis t
eadem
ubstantia
it,
um
persone
intdiuerse.
Nam
ubicumque
unt
ersone
lures, lures
unt t
substantie,
el ubicum-
que
una
est
ubstantia,
na
tantum
nueniturt
persona
nisi
n
lia summa
essentia
ue,
cum n
rerum
reatione
mirabilis
ppareat,
n sua
mirabilior
cogitatur
atura.
Et
ut
omne
mbiguitatis
enus
xeludamus,
ides has
duas
uoces
"unum"
scilicet
t
"idem"
duobus
accipi
modis,
ecundum
indifferentiam
t
secundum
dentitatem
iusdem
rorsus
ssentie. ecun-
dum
ndifferentiam,
t
Petrum t
Paulum
dem
dicimus
sse
n
hoc
quod
sunt
homines,
uantum
enim
ad
humanitatem
ertinet,
icut
iste est
rationalis t ille; et sicut ste est mortalis t ille. Sed si ueritatem on-
fiteli
olumus,
on est
eadem
utriusque
umanitas,
ed
similis,
um sint
duo
homines.
ed
hic
modusunius
d
nturm
iuinitatis onest
referen-
dus
ne,
quod
fidei
ontrarium
st,
hac
acceptione
res
Dos uel tres
ub-
stantias
ogamur
onfiteli.
Secundum
dentitatem
ero,
prorsus
num et
idem dicimus etrum
t
Simonem,
aulum et
Saulum,
acob et
Isral
qui,
cum
singuli ingulas
habeant
ubstantias,
inguli
non
plus
quam
singulas
habent
personas'.23
21
Priscian,
I,
18
=
ed.
Hertz, , p. ss13"4.
22
Priscian,
VII, 30
=
ed.
Hertz, I, p. 127
2~e.
23Editedby Dom . Lottin n hisPsychologietmorale ux XIIe et XIIIe
sicles,
ome
V,
Problmes
'histoire
ittraire:
'cole
d'Anselme e Laon
et de
Guillaume
e
Champeaux,
embloux
959,
pp.
192-3.
9
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
15/164
So we
can
observe
that an
incongruity
with
respect
to the
gram-
matical rules
gradually developed
to an
institutionalized
ncongruity,
so
that we
may speak
of a
figura,
and
got
its
theoretical
frame
by
the
interaction of
logic
and
grammar, probably
stimulated
by questions
asked
from he
part
of the
theologians.
The interest Abailard
pays
to this
kind
of
rdatio,
arises from ts
usefulness
for his
logical
inquiries.
Abailard
makes the well-known
distinction between
the
significatio
rerum
nominaiio
or
appellatici)
the extensional
or denotative
meaning-function
f
a
word,
and
the
significatio
ntellectuum
the
later
significatio
n a
strict
sense),
the
intensional
or
connotative
meaning-function
f a
word.24 Another
distinction Abailard makes in the meaning-function f the noun,
is based
upon
the notions
discretio nd
confusio
i.e. discretejdistincte
opp.
non- istinct
onf
s
eindis
rete).
5
These
distinctions,
when in
combination
applied
to
the
nouns,
result
n: i. nomen
significationis
confusas
2. nomen
nominationis
confusae
3.
nomen
nominationis
discretae.
rom these
only
the former wo
are of
nterestfor
he rdatio
indifferens.
Ad.
I.
Every
noun used
intensionally
s
a nomen
significationis
confusae.
In the inherence
theory
of
predication
the
predicate
term
is always accepted intensionally: connoting the universal nature
that inheres n
the
subject
(a
concretum),.g.
the
proposition
Socrates
est
animal'
expresses
that the
universal
nature of animal
{=
status
animalis or
the esse animal
inheres
in the
subject
Socrates.As
24
For the
distinction
etween
the
significatio
erum nd the
significatio
intellectuum
y
Abailard,
ee L.
M.
de
Rijk,
Logica
Mod.
II,
i,
p.
194:
'The
term
significatio
is
reserved,hen,
or
he
significatio
ntellectuum
nly,
while
what
was called
significatio
ei
according
o
the
first
oint
of
view receives
the name
appellatio
r nominatio'
and
J.
Pinborg,
ogik
und
Semantik
m
Mittelalter.in berblickStuttgart 972,pp. 51-2: Er (sc. Abailard)nimmt
seinen
Ausgangspunkt
n
der xtensionellen
eutung
AlleWrter
wir
ehen
hier von
den
Syncategoremata
b,
die
nur
mit den
kategorematischen
us-
drcken
usammen
twas denotieren
sind
Namen
(durch ppellatio,
der
in
der
Terminologie
baelards
ignificatio
erum).
Wenn
wir
aber die
Be-
deutung
uf
die
significatio
erum
eduzieren,
ekommen
ir
Schwierigkeiten
mit den
Allgemeinbegriffen
nd
mit den
Verben,
eren
Bedeutung
uf
diese
Weise nicht
rschpfend
eschrieben
ird.
Sie konstituieren
a
einen
nhalt,
der kein
Ding
ist.
Diese
Art
der
Bedeutung
enntAbaelard
ignificatio
n-
tellectuum. ie
ist eine
Abstraktion
us den
denotierten
inzeldingen:
man
darf lso nicht
on
einem
Allgemeinbegriff
nd
seiner
ignificatio
ntellectuum
auf etwasExtensionelles
chliessen'.
25Cf.Beonio 969,p. 93 for heterms iscretusndconfusus,eealsoDe Rijk,
Logica
Mod.
II, 1,
pp.
590-1
nd
592.
2e
For the
nherence
heory
y
Abailard,
ee
L.
M.
de
Rijk
m his
ntroduction
10
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
16/164
we
have
seen
27
this
proposition
determinate
ays
hominem sse
animal
i.e.
Socrates
st
sse
animal
quod
pse
est.
By
using
the
relatives
llud
quod
referring
o
animal Abailard
gets
in
conflict
with the
requirements
f
the
grammarians,
ince
they
have to
refer o a
certa
persona
so that
by application
of it
in
the
proposition
Socrates
est
esse
animal
quod
ipse
est the
indeterminate
meaning-function
f animal
here
would
be
restricted.
Therefore
Abailard
takes
up
the
relatio
indifferens
in
order to make a relatio to
a
nomen
ignificationis
onfusae
without
any restricting
orce.
Ad
2.
In the
'Introductions
parvulorum
Abailard
also
gets
in
conflictwith
the
restrictive orce
the
relative
pronouns
have
according
to thegrammarians.28n thediscussion nthemultiplicitasropositionis
ex
relatione
pronominis
Abailard
rejects
the
opinion
that
any
multi-
plicitas
in
propositions
of the
type
omnis
homo
diligit
e'
can be
based
upon
a
multiplicitas
pronominis
there
is
according
to
Abailard no
multiplicitas
t
all: Like omms homo
has
an
indeterminateor
non-
distinct
meaning
in
the
proposition,
he
relative,
since it
refers
o
a
vox
confusae
ignificationis
causes a
relatio
onfusa
It
must,
however,
be
emphasized
that homo in
the
quoted
proposition
'
omnis
homo
diligit
e
*
is not
used in the
same
meaning-function
s
animal
n
Socrates
est animal as clearly appears fromthe discussion Abailard devotes
to
the
suggested
multiple
sense of the
proposition
omnis
homo
curri
in
the
Logica
'
Ingredientibus
29
He
speaks
here of
ndiscrete
ominare
to
Petrus
Abaelardus,
ialctica,
nd
ed.,
Assen
1970,
p.
XLII:
'Inherence
theory.
According
o
this
theory
he
copula
of
an
affirmative
roposition
states
the
nherence f a
"universal
ature"
ignified
y
the
predicate
erm,
in
the
individuum
enoted
by
the
subject
term';
and
Pinborg
972,
p.
53:
'Die
inhaerentia-Theorie.
ach
dieser
wird
das
Prdikat
ntensionelluf-
gefasst,
.h.
es stehtfr
einen
allgemeinen)
nhalt
significatio
er se).
Die
copula
drckt
us,
dass
dieser nhalt
sich
m
Subjekt
als Form
findet.
as
Subjektwird xtensionellufgefasst,ndem as Prdikat ber lle odereinigeoderkeine
der
Denotata
des
Subjektes
ussagt'.
27
See
above,
p.
5.
Pietro
AbelardoScritti
ilosofici,
d. M.
Dal
Pra,
Roma/Milano954
19692],
pp. 235 sqq.
For
the
text,
ee
Appendix
.
29
Ed.
Geyer,
Peter
Abaelards,
.
463:
'Sed
dicitur,
uod
si
omnis
ingula
colligit
uae
continenturn
voce cui
apponitur
multiplicem
ropositionem
facit,
elut si
homini
ppositum
olligat
ocratem
t
ceteros
ui
continentur
in
homine,
tale>
est,
um
dicitur:
omnis
omo
urri,
si
dicatur: Socrates
currit,
lato
curriet
sic
de
ceteris.
ed ad
hoc
dico,
quod
non
est
verum,
i
colligit
singulos
homines,
uod
multiplicem
ropositionem
aciat,
quippe
indiscrete t
indifferenter
ic
singulos
olligit,
t non
distingut,
ui
sint,
quia sicuthomo' ndiscreteosnominat ondistinguendoui sint, ta omnis'
appositum
omini
ndiscrete
os
colligit
t
hoc
solum
dicitur,
uod quicquid
est
homo,
st
animai
currens ),
sed
qui
sint
homines,
on
distinguitur'.
II
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
17/164
with
regard
to
the
subject
term
homo
and
of indiscrete
olligere
with
regard
to
the universal
sign
omnis.We have here a
noun used extension-
ally30.
And
what Abailard calls
a
noun
significationis onfusae
in
the Introductiones
iarvulorum,
e
calls more
precisely
a noun
Habens
nominationem
onfusam
n
the
Logica
'
Ingredientibus
mulier n
the
example
'
mulier
quae
damnavit,
psa
salvavit31
When
Abailard
makes
a relatio to
a noun nominationis
onfusae
he
has to take
his
refuge
o
the relatio
ndifferens
oo,
in
order
to avoid the
attributionof
a
sig-
nificano
determinata
y
the relative.
B. William
of
Conches
In hisGlosule uperPriscianumWilliamofConches32also comments
on
Priscian,
XVII,
30,
the
place
where Priscian
speaks
about
the
four
ways
the
relative
qui
and its
oblique
cases can
refer o the
ante-
cedent.33William
proves
to be
well aware
of
the conflict Priscians
requirement
as to
de
nominativo
ad
nominativm auses
in
respect
to
propositions
of
the
type
as
'
mulier
etc
He offers
wo
solutions:
either
we
appeal
to
the well-known
dictum
that the
Holy
Bible is
not
submitted to
the rules of
the
grammarians,
or
we
state
that
here
we
have
to
do
with
a locutio
igurativa
[f.98rb]Seddicerent oc essefalsumum nueniaturmulierue dapnauit
saluaui
tarnen adem
mulier
apnauit
t saluauit.
Quibus
responde-
mus uel
quod
diuina
pagina,
ut domina
rcium,
ulli
arti
subiacet,
el
quod
illa locutio
sit
figuratiua.
st
enim sensus llius:
idem sexus
et
dapnauit
t saluauit.
Et sic
hoc
nomen
mulier
bi est nomen
exus,
non
persone/.34
It
is
remarkable
that
William here
does
not
speak
about
the
relatio
indifferens
implex,
since
he
appears
to
be
acquainted
with this
kind
of relatio
as can be
proved
by
his
comment
on
Priscian,
XVII,
115,
wherehe uses the term relatiogeneralis
[f. 8]
et
acce.
p.
con. gre.
Et
subdit,
dest
aitoi,
ocest
ompositum
tercie
ersone.
ed ne
aliquisputet
uod
n sola
tercia
ersona
sset om-
positum
ronomen.
t sic est
generalis
elatio'.
30
See
above,
p.
10.
31
See
above,
p.
5.
32
For
the
grammarian
illiam f
Conches,
is
works,
he
MSS,
and his
posi-
tion n the
learned
world
of
the twelfth
entury,
ee E.
Jeauneau,
eux
r-
dactions
es
gloses
e Guillaume
e Conches
ur
Priscien,
n:
RTAM,
27
(i960),
pp.
212-47;
nd De
Rijk,Logica
Mod.
II,
i,
pp.
221-8.
33See above,p. 9,. 22.
34
quote
the
Ms
Paris,
BN
lat.
15130
,
this
part
s also
printed
y Jeauneau
i6o, p.
240.
12
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
18/164
How we
have
to
accept generalis
n this
context,
can be
illustrated
by
the discussion
on the
meaning
of the
pronouns {ad
Priscian,
XII,
3),
where
generalis
s used
in
opposition
to
firaprius,
here the
equivalent
ofdiscretus
determinatus
[ff.
ovb-8ira]
is de
quo
i
mDixi.
Exemplum
st
ubirelatiuums
positum
in
responsione
acit
ecundam
ognitionem
e re de
qua precessit
ltera
cognicio
er
llam
dictionemd
quam
refertur.ed
queritur
um
dicamus
'
homo
mbulai,
dem
mouetur',
n idem aciat
fiat
MS]
ibi
[in MS]
secun-
dam
cognitionem
e
re
de
qua precessit
ognitio
er
hoc nomen
homo
Nam
non
possumus
icere
uod
dem
bi
facit
ognicionem
e re
significata
per
hoc
nomen,
um lludnichil isi
peciem
ignificete
de re
nominata
per
ipsum,
om illud
nichil
nomint isi
singulos
homines;
t de
nullo
hominum
bi fit
ecunda
ognitio.
d
quod
dicimus
uod
de
rebus
diuerse
fiunt
ognitiones,
cilicet lie
generales,
lie
proprie,
lie
substantiales,
alie accidentales. um gitur icimushomo mbula generlemacimus
de eo
cognitionem
t
id
quod
homo est res illa
de
qua
sermo st.
Cum
uero
dicimus
idemmouetur'
de eadem facimus
ropriam
ognitionem,
idest
quod
ille
idem homo
qui
ambulat,
mouetur. t sie
[f.
81ra]
fit
secunda
ognitio
t
propria
e eadem re de
qua precessit eneralis
og-
nicio.
Vel
dicamus
ieud se
prius,
ut
exposuimus,
uod
omnes
persone
uerborum
otabiles
unt et
certe,
quod
nemo
debet dicere
qui
proprie
uelit
oqui
'
homo mbula nisi
pro aliquo
hominum
iffiniteoc
dicat.
Et
tunc
acit
rimam
ognitionemer
hoc
nomen
omo e
aliquo
hominum
et
propriam.
t
cum
postea
subdit
idem
mouetur'
facit
per
hoc
nomen
idem
propriam
t
secundam
ognitionem
e eodem
homine.'.
As appears fromthis comment, William does not generally like
to
accept
a
sort of
relatio
simplex
as
belonging
to the
common and
grammatical
way
of
speech.
This fact can be
illustrated, too,
by
his
comment
on
Priscian, XII,
i :
[f.
76vb]
Dicimus
nim
uod
etiam
ubi:
ronomen
eferturd
appellatiuum
nomen,
bi
ponitur
ro proprio
nomine,
dest
in
significatione
roprii
nominis,
dest
d
significandum
liquam
ndiuiduam
ubstantiam. am
si
dicatur
homo
mbulat,
dem
mouetur'istud
pronomen
dem
ponitur
d
significandum
ropriam
ubstantiam.
ntelligimus
nim
er
hoc
pronomen
idem
uod
lle
demhomo
ui
ambulat,
mouetur. i
dicatur
uod
nescimus
per lludpronomene quo sitsermo, icimus uia uerum st; sed illequi
profert,
orsitan
eit
pro quo profrt
homo
mbulat t
de
eodem erum
est
quod
mouetur'Et
siue sciatur iue
nesciatur
e
quo
homine it
sermo,
tarnen
citur
er pronomen
dem
quod
ille
qui
ambulat,
mouetur;
uod
nesciretur,
i
nomen
repeteretur.
am
tunc
propositiones
ossunt
sse
uere
uel false
pro
diuersis,
t
si
diceretur
homo
mbulat,
omo
mouetur'
Sed
cum
pronomen
elatiuum
bi
ponitur,
ro
eodem
uere sunt
semper
ambe
propositiones
el
false,
t
cum dicitur
homo
mbulat,
demmouetur'
ad
eadem
ersonam
eferendusst actus
uterque'.
C.
The
Gloss
Licet Multi
In Arte
The
Ms
Oxford
Bodl.
Canon mise
281
contains on
ff.
r
-
83
v
a
glosson the Priscian minor 35
35
For
the
description
f this
Ms,
see
L. M.
de
Rijk,
SomeThirteenth
entury
13
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
19/164
Inc.
prol.
Licet multi
n
arte
gramatica
recipui
onstructionum
xpositi-
onem
obis
reliquerint
n suis arnen
xpositionibus
inus
iligentes
.
.
Inc.
glos.
Priscianus
gitur
e arte
gramatica
e
tractaturum
roponens
cumtria int psiusmateria . .Des. .
.
.
non,
nquam,
ta
dicitur
ego ego
homo',
ed
quotquot
habeat
nominatiuos,
ebent
recedere
erbum.
In
the
same
hand
some
notes
on the
interpunction
nd on
metrical
questions
are added. A different and
wrote
on ff
84v
-
8yY
a tract
on
logic.36
As to
the datation
and
localisation
of
the
gloss
there
s
no
external criterium
xtant,37
but some
of the
views
expressed
in the
gloss
stand
in
close
affinity
with
those
of
William
of
Conches,
e.g,
the
explanation
on the terms
transitivas nd intransitivas
sc.
with
regard to the constructo transitiva nd intransitiva, y means of the
terms
corporeus
nd
incorporeus
38
the discussion
on
the
meaning
of
the
nouns39
and the view
that the
participle
of
the
present
tense
Tracts n theGame
of Obligation
in:
Vivarium,
III
(1975), pp.
22-54,
sp.
pp.
22-3.
36
Edited
by
De
Rijk
1975,
pp.
26-54.
37
There
re some
slight
ndications,
part
of the
doctnnary
ne:
the use
of
the e
-
caudata
n
stead of the usual
e in
some
places
(Ms
s.
XII)
;
dealing
with he
oloecism,
he
glossator ives
he
nstance:
utmodo
aciunt
ormanni
;
the use ofthe
nameof
Chartres
n
examples.38Ms f. 2r: 'Et nota quosdamterciummembrum onstructionumignare,
uidelicet
mixtam,
dest nec transitiuam ec
intransitiuam,
ed
partim
hoc
partim
llud,
ut
'
Socrates lbus uidet
Platonem
Dicunt enim
rationem
on
esse,
unde
potius
udicetur
ntransitiua
uam
transitiua el
econuerso,
um
habeat
partes
ntransitiue
unctas,
ut
Socrates
t
albus
et alias
transitiue
iunctas,
ut
uidet
t Platonem.
oc
autem
dicunt stius
nominis ntransitiua
uim
penitus
gnorantes,
um enim
ompositum
it
ex
hoc
nomine
ransitiuum,
quod
datum
est
per
positionem
ue
significationis,
t in
priuatoria artcula.
Sicut dicitur
corporeum
liquid
habens
corporei,
ncorporeum
ichil,
ta
transitiuum
liquid
habens
transitionis,
ntransitiuumichil'.For
the
view
held
by
William,
ee Ms
Paris,
BN
lat.
151
0,
f.
85rb_va:
Sed dicent
on-
structionemuehabetnominatiuumumuerbo tobliquo ndiuersis ersonis
nec tantum sse transsitiuam
ec
ntranssitiuam,
t Socrates
iligit
latonem'.
Quibus
dicimus
uod
omnis
que
habet
duas dictiones
f.
85 a]
transsitiue
coniunctas,
tsi
multas
ntranssitiuaoniunctas
abeat,
transsitiua
st.
Item
dicunt:
Quare
pocius
propter
artem
ranssitiuam
icitur ranssitiua
uam
propter
ntranssitiuam
ntranssitiua
Contra
uod
dicimus
uod
hoc
nomen
intranssitiua
riuatiuum
st,
hoc nomen
ranssitiua on.
Est autem
priua-
tiuorum
atura
totum
ontrarium
egare,
t
incorporeum
st de
quo
nichil
est
corpus.
ed
non-priuatiua
on
priuant
ontrarium,
t
quando
dico istud
est
corporeum',liquam
eius
partem
sse
incorporeum
on
nego.
Potest
enim
aliquid
esse
corporeum
t
partem
habere
ncorpoream,
t homo. Sic
igitur
intranssitiua
artem
ranssitiuam
abere
non
potest,
ed
transsitiuam
ichil
prohibetaberentranssitiuam'.
39
Ms
f
i9r"v:
Sed
nota: Cum
nomen
signifcet
ubstantiam,
on tamen
omne
nomen.
Quedam
enim
ignificantualitatem,
t
albedo,
uedam
aliud.
14
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
20/164
cannot
be
construed
with a
verb of the future
tense,40
o
that I
surmise
that
the
gloss
belongs
to
the
intellectual
area
of
Chartres
and Paris of the middle
of
the twelfth
entury.
In
the same
way
as
William
of
Conches
the
glossator
comments
on
Priscian, XVII,
30,
too.
To
the
objection
made
against
Priscian's
requirement
llustrated
by
the
example
'
mulier etc.1 he
answers
that
the
relative
here
is used
non
proprie
(i.e.
figurate
,
or
that
the
Holy
Bible
is
not submitted to the rules
of
Priscian
[f.
4r]
'Sed
si
opponatur
de
ista
constructionemulier
ue
saluauit,
dampnaui,
dicendum
st
quia proprie
non
ponitur
ui
ibi uel
diuina
pagina
non
subiacet
egulis
risciani.'.
Priscian, XVII, 115 is also commented on by the glossator n nearly
the
same
way
as William
does,
but
he
speaks
of
relatio
simplex
in
stead
of
generalis
[f.
47r]
Et
nota illud
simplicem
elationem
acere
d
compositum
non
ad
eaitoy.
Aliter
nim esset falsum.
Compositum
nim
habent n
tribus
personis,
aitoy
n
sola tercia habent.Sed
quia
auctor
dicturus
st in
sequentibus
omposita rime
t secunde
ersone
arere
lurali
t
pluralia
eaitoy
oco eorum
uccedere,
deo
illud
quod
ad
eaitoy
hoc
modo
potest
referri.'.
D. Thierry fChartres
The
example
'
mulier
etc also
occurs
twice
n
the
writings
f
Thierry
of
Chartres:
.
.
.
Item. Nota
quedam
nomina
uisse
nuenta d
quedam
significanda
t
ad
alia
appellanda
uel
nominanda,
uedam
d
eadem
significanda
t
appellanda.
Omna
enim
ppellatiua
liud
significant
t
aliud
appellant,
ommant.
igni-
ficant nim
rem
llam
de
qua
per
se
prolata
ntellectum
onstituunt,
t
ideo
nullam
rem
discretam
ignificant.
psa
enim
per
se
prolata
nichil
discrete
faciunt
ntelligi.
Res
autem
dicunt
ppellare,
uia
eis
conueniunt
er
appellationem. erbigratia.Cum aliquisprofert anc uocemhomo, ullumhominemacit
ntelligi,
ed rem
uandam
ssecommunemmnibus
ominibus,
idest
hominem;
t
ideo
rem
llam
ignificat.
ingulos
utem
homines
ppellat.
Sed
hoc
nomen
ocrates
f. gv]
dem
ideo
Ms]
significat
t
appellat,
t
omnia
propria
ominanichil
nim
liud
significantuam
appellant'
For
William's
view,
ee De
Rijk,Logica
Mod.
II,
1,
pp. 223-4.
40
Ms f.
56v:
'sciendum
tamen. Licet
participia
t
infinitiua
redicta
int
presents
emporis
t
preteriti
nperfecti,
ossunt
amen
onstruium
preterito
perfecto
t
plusquamperfecto
n
significatione
reteriti
nperfecti,
dest
signi-
ficando
nceptionem
ei
et non
perfectionem.
um
enim
dicitur
scribens
profeci',
on fit
bi
hic
ntellectus,
t
quidamputant:
cripsi
t
profeci.
unc
enim
haberet
cribens
ensum
preteriti
erfecti
uem
nunquam
habet. Hune
autem ntellectumonstituit: cribebam, rofeci. t nota quod si iungatur
cum
preterito
lusquamperfecto,
undem
ensum.
imilitern
sensu tantum
preteriti
nperfecti
ungitur
nfinitiuus
infinitiuis
s]
eis.
Cum
futuro
utem
15
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
21/164
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
22/164
quod
est
qualitas
,
are
here
used
improprie
so
that
they
make
a
relatio
simplex.
For,
he
continues,
f
they
were
used
proprie
both
verbs had
to referto
the
same
suppositum,
which
would
make the
proposition
false.
Thierry
illustrates
this
problem
with
an
example
also
given
in the Lectiones
'
Socrates
est homo
qui
est
species
This
proposition
would
mean,
if
the relative
qui
were
used
here
proprie
that
Socrates
is
man
as well as
species:
Quod falsum
est
E.
John
of Salisbury
When
John
of
Salisbury
in the 20th
chapter
of
the
second
book
of
his
Metalogicon
6
states
that
an
universale
according
to his view
is
quod menscommuniterntelligit . . quod vox communiterignificai he
immediately
points
at
the
problem
this
definition
auses with
respect
to the
rules
of
the
ars
grammatica,
ince
according
to
this ars
the
meaning
of
the relatives
may
not
be
vague,
but
has
always
to
be
restricted from
an infinite
to a
definite
meaning by
a
determinatio
personae
aut actus aut alterius
actionis.
Whenever
there
is not
any
certain or
definite base for
the
relatio
there
cannot
be a
relatio,
at
least
not
without
a
vitium
r
a
figura.
So in
the case
of relative
clauses
of
the
type quod
promittitur, uod
significatur
quod
intelligitur
he
object of the act
expressed
by
the verb must be
something
discretum,
at
least
in
order to
constitute
a
propria
relatio.
In
opposition
to this
kind of
relatio,
John
sets
the
relatio
in
genere,
n which no
definite
thing
s
at
the
basis
of the relatio
nd in
which the
relatives
have not a
determinate
signification,
f
we
want to
save the
true
sense
of
the
proposition.
He
gives
three
examples
of
this kind of relatio
n
genere:
'
mulier
que
salvavit,
damnavi
'
lignum
quod
mortis,
t
vitecausam
dedi
'quas Boreas aufert, evehitmitis Z ephirus rondes*47
The
relatives n
these
propositions
do
not,
according
to
John,
refer o
aliquid
diffinitum
uod
discernant
but
they
remain n
genere.
And
at
the
same
way
the relatives in
the
above
mentioned
clauses about the
universalia
have to
be
accepted:
They
do
not
refer o
anything
definite,
but
remain
also
in
genere.
46
oannis
Saresberiensis
piscopi
Carnotensis
Metalogicon
ibri
UI,
rec.
. . I. Webb,Oxford 929,PP-97~n6, esp.pp. 101-5.For thetext, eeAp-
pendix
.
47
Bothius,
ons.
. M.
5.
20.
17
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
23/164
Next
John explains
his
view on the universalia
with a discussion
centered
around
the
example 'quod significatur
hoc nomine
homo',
species est'. He underlines
t with the
statement that if one
attends
the
relatio
simplex
que fit
in
genere,
8
there
are no
troubles
with the
foregoing
ropositions;
but
if
one looks
for
User
dio,
it would
not be-
come clear what is meant
as
discrete,
.e. in the
case
of a
relatio
ropria.
Like
Abailard,
John
also deals
in this context with the
proposition
'omnis homo
diligit
se'. First
he
states
that
every
demonstrative
nd
relative word is used
either non
satis
proprie implex
relatio
que fit
in
genere)
or
refers
o a definite
object:
'aut certo t sua ratione
definito
innititur
ubiecto'
relatio
ropria)
otherwise
hey
are
deprived
of their
very function. There is, however, also an abuse of the relatio ex
causa
commoditatis n the
proposition
omnis homo
diligit
se'.
John
calls it a relatio
icentiosa 49
The two
grammatical
texts show
that the
grammarians
of the first
part
of the twelfth
century
were aware
of the
problems
that rose
around
propositions
of
the
type
'mulier etc.'.
They
solved them
with
the
help
of a
figura,
but
they
did not use
in this case the
relatio
implex
generalis.
In fact
they
refused
to
speak
about this distinction
n the
paragraphs devoted to the
relatio and the
relatives,
and even
more:
William of Conches
expressly
refused
to
accept
a
significatio onfusa
or
generalis
of the
(relative)
pronouns,
a
requirement
for
the relatio
simplex.
It
must
also be noted
that Peter Helias
in
no
part
of his
Summa mentioned
the relatio
implex.
On the other
hand,
they
knew
this notion well
and
used
it
in their comment on
Priscian,
XVII,
115,
to which the Master
of the
Sententie lso referred.
Quite
in
opposition
to the attitude
of the
grammarians
s that of the
logicians: Thierry
and
John
made in a
rather xtensive
way
use of t.
The
real
application
of it in the writingsof Thierryremains somewhat obscure,since we
have
only
two references
ut
of his
theological
works
at our
disposal,
48
McGarry's
ranslation
n The
Metalogiconf
John
of Salisbury Berkeley
and Los
Angeles
1955,
must be
corrected
n
this
point. McGarry
ailed
o
see
the
technical
meaning
f
relatio
implex
que
fit
n
genere
and translated
'Plane si
relationem
implicem,
ue
fit
n
genere,
uis
attendat
.
with
'Evidently,
f
one ooks
nly
or
simple
eneral elationship
tc It
is,
however,
definitely
ot
a
question
f a
general
elationship,
ut
of
the
relatio
implex
i.e.
the relatio
uefit
n
genere
the
same
as
John
ome
ines
before
alled
the
relatio
n
genere.
49So John peaks fthree inds frelatio1) therelatio ropria2) therelatio
simplex,
n
fact
a
relatio
mpropria
but
non-vitiosa
figura
3)
the relatio
licentiosa.
18
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
24/164
but
according
to
his
own
words
he dealt with
propositions
of
the
type
in
which
the relatio
simplex
occurs,
in his
logical
writings.50
nd
in
John's
discussion
on the
universais
the relatio
implex appears
to be
a
useful tool in order to
explain
his view.
When we
summarize
the first
tage
of
development
of the
relatio
simplex
we first re
confronted
with
Priscian's two
requirements
with
respect
to the
meaning
of the
pronouns
and
the use of the
relative
noun
qui
in
proposition,
hat musthave
caused
problems
n
connection
with
ome authoritative
ayings.
n
developing
the
theory
of
meaning
of
the universal
nouns the
logicians
were
confrontedwith the
same
problems:
As trained
grammarians hey
solved
it with
the
application
of a logical distinction: the second component of the termrelatio
indiff
er
ens
/ ener
alis
/
implex
is
a
logical
notion.
Especially
the
logicians
developed
this distinction
further and
made
a
frequent
use
of it in their
discussions, without,
however,
to
forget
ts
gram-
matical
origin.
This
attention from the
part
of the
logicians
is
maybe
the
reason
why
the
grammarians
howed
less interest n
it:
They
explained
this
way
of
speech
by
means of a
figura]
this
figura
did not
belong
to the
traditional
corpus
of
the
figur
e:
It
was
part
of
the mos
docentis
of
the
logicians.
Utrecht
Instituut
voorLaat
Latijn
AppendixA
PeterAbaelards
hilosophische
chriften,
d. .
Geyer,Beitrge
ur
Ge-
schichte
er
Philosophie
nd
Theologie
es
Mittelalters,XI,
1-3,
Mnster.
W.,
1919-27.
Logica Ingredientibus'pp. 396-7:
Quaeritur
cum
dicitur
de omnibus
veris
affirmationibus,
uod
dicunt
aliquid
esse
aliquid quod
ipsum
est,
utrum,
liquid
esse
aliquid,
quod
ipsum
est',
sit in vi
nominis
el
orationis.
t f
rtasse
dicitur,
uod
in
vi nominis
omnium ictorum
ropositionum
i
firmati
arum
ategoricarum,
uod
non
est,
iam
non eri
impersonaliter
ositum quo
ut
nomen
ccipitur
ulla
signi-
ficatio
artium
ttendetur
illud
tempus
habebunt d
quod
referantur,
ullam
coniunctionem
ttendimus ffirmationisn
verbis
huiusmodi,
er
quae
doctrina
ensus
ffirmationis
at,
quia
non est
omnino
n
vi
orationis
accepta.
Unde
potius
concedendumst
,
liquid
esse
aliquid quod
ipsum
st'
in
vi
orationis
ccipi
et
,
liquid'
ubicumque onitur,
omen
st
omnium am
exsistentiumuam nonexsistentium,icutet quandodicitur liquidesse id
50
See
above,
p.
16.
19
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
25/164
quod
non
est,
ut
,chimaera
st homo'
vel
,chimaera
st chimaera'
el cum
,aliqui
nomen
ommune it
mnium,
otest
haec
mpersonalis
ratio,
liquid
esse
aliquid
ipsum
est'
generaliter
e
habere d omnes ensus
cate-
goricarum erarum ffirmationum,uae personalibuserminisonstant, thuius
quoque
sensus
propositionis
ontineat
liquid
esse
aliquid,
sicut et
istarum:
homo
st
animal'vel
,
margarita
st
apis'.
Ex
quo apparet
uod
et
,homo
st
animal'
et
,
ocrates
st animal'
utraque
icit
hominem
sse
animal,
cum
tamen
altera
simpliciter
icat
hominem sse
animal,
lteradeterminate
proponat
ominem
une esse animal.
Propositiotaque
dicens
hominem
sse
animal lia
simpliciter
d
dicit
quod
homo
est
animai,
lia
quod
Socrates
st
animal
vel
Plato,
et sic
de aliis.
Attende
tiam,
quod
cum
,
ocrates st
animal' dicat Socratem
sse
illud
quod ipse
est,
llud
quod
est' neutraliter
onitur,
c si dicatur:
uae
res
pse
est,
ad animal
simpliciter
efertur
ta
quod
ex Socrate
quod
subiectum
st,
nullam
ignificationem
eterminatam
ccipit,
icut
et cum dicitur:
per
mu-
lierem ntravitmors, er eandemvita' vel ,mulier uae damnavit,psa sal-
vavit' indifferenter
ronomina
eferimus,
on
personaliter,
si dicatur:
mulier amnavit
t
eadem,
d
est,
res eius
sexus
salvavit,
cilicet
imiliter,
t
videlicet adem
secundum
ndifferentiam
exus,
non secundum
dentitatem
personae
dicatur.
Nec sola
pronomina
ndifferentem
elationem
abent icut
et nomen
appellativum
d
quod
refertur,
abet
confusam
ominationem,
verum
t demonstrativa
ronomina
uae
nullo
praemisso
ndigent,
onfusam,
non
personalem
ignificationem
abent,
veluticum sacerdos
quam positam
benedicens
it:
,qui pedibus
uper
e ambula
it,
qui
te
in
aquam
convertit',61
id
est
,tui
similem'
t non de
identitte
ersonae,
ed de
natura
elementi
dictum
ntelligatur.
on hanc
enim
personaliter
quam,
dicimus,
alcavit
vel
mutavit,
ed
elementm iusdem.
Sicut
ergo
demonstrativis
ronominibus
quandoque
non personalitert discrete timur, ed generalitert confuse,
sic etiam
relativis,
um ad nomen
onfusae
ignificationis
efertur,
eluti
um
dicimus:
uod
Socrates st
animai,
icit:
Socrates
st esse
aliquid
quod
ipse
est,
d est
esse
animal,
uod,
scilicet
nimal,
pse
est,
quod
tantum
alet
si dicatur:
icit
umesse
animal
t
pse
est
animal.
Et attende
uod
illud
uppositum
quod pse
est' ad sensum
uius ocrates
est animal'
non
pertinet,
ed
quaedam
est determinatio
raedicati,
eluti
i
dicatur:
quod
Socrates
st
animal,
dicit eum
hominem sse
animal
qui
est
philosophus,
eterminatio
st
subiecti
ec
in
sensum
ropositionis
enit,
um
in
propositione
il
de
philosophia
ignificetur.
Appendix
Petri
Abaelardi
Opera
Theologica,
d.
E.
M.
Buytaert,
urnholti,
969*
Corpus
Christianorum
Continuatio
ediaeualis,
XII.
Theologia
hristiana
III,
144 [pp.
249-50]
144.
Et secundum
as
quidem
tantum
duas
significationes
upra
positas
relatiue
upponi
olet
hoc
pronomen
uod
est
idem',
hoc est
aut
secundum
identitatem
umeri,
ut
secundum
dentitatem
efinitionis.
um
enim
icimus
'mulier amnauit
mundum
t eadem
aluauit',
duo
sunt
ensus,
nus
quidem
falsus,
i ad
identitatem
umeri
iat
relatio,
t uidelicet adem
personaliter
numeromulierntelligatur
t damnasse
t
saluasse;
alius
sensus
uerus,
i
ad identitatemefinitionisupponaturdem,ut uidelicet antummodoigni-
61
Benedict
o
fontis
n
S
abbaio
aneio.
20
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM, VOL. 14, NOS. 1-2, 1976
26/164
fiet
uantum
nomenmulieris
impliciter,
ta
repetitum:
mulier
amnaui
et mulier
aluaui,
quod quidem
uerum st
propter
uam et
Mariam.'.
Appendix
L.
Minio-
aluello,
Twelfth
enturyogic.
Texts
nd
Studies I.
Abaelardiana
inedita
Roma,
1958.
Sententie
ecundum .
Petrm,
VI-XXX
[pp.
11
-9]:
[XVI]
Cum dicitur
enarius
perfici
x
quaternario
t
dimidietate
ius,
istud
eius* d hoc
nomen
quaternarium'
uobusmodis
eferri
otest
ecundum
vim
verborum,
oc est
vel
secundum
ersonam
el
secundum
peciem
ive
naturam
quaternarii.
uobus